Is global warming even real?

One reason is the Koch brothers don't want to lose the bottom line. So what's the avatar represent? Looks like a down line for some deep free dive.

Click to expand...

So we have to rig it so chaps like them make the trillions on the transition to Hippieville. Aparently, we have to do business with these assholes in order to get it done. If that's what it takes, so be it. We have to stop using the fossil shit right now. Of course these people are terrified of losing their fat income and will do anything to keep it flowing in. The farce is we'd all do exactly the same and wouldn't care about the consequences either, staring ourselves blind on that blasted lucre too. Human nature is absurd and self destructive.

(And yeah, my avatar is an old picture of me a friend took in Egypt. I used to be a freediver.)

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

So we have to rig it so chaps like them make the trillions on the transition to Hippieville. Aparently, we have to do business with these assholes in order to get it done. If that's what it takes, so be it. We have to stop using the fossil shit right now. Of course these people are terrified of losing their fat income and will do anything to keep it flowing in. The farce is we'd all do exactly the same and wouldn't care about the consequences either, staring ourselves blind on that blasted lucre too. Human nature is absurd and self destructive.

(And yeah, my avatar is an old picture of me a friend took in Egypt. I used to be a freediver.)

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I was a commercial oilfield diver during the 70's. I like that look. Clearly the oligarchs don't give a crap about the future of the planet.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

That Greenland was significantly warmer when the Vikings settled it was common knowledge before the first hockey stick was compiled. The new info is the better and more accurate dates and temperatures, knowledge of the basic situation predates the internet.

sculptor said:

Both china and greenland show previous warmer conditions not evident on your precious hockey stick!

Click to expand...

No, they don't. All that data, year after year, has been incorporated into the various global temp graphs that have been compiled, a new one or two every couple of years, since the first famous one. I linked you one from iirc 2013, that incorporated the data from a couple of your chosen studies, just so you could see how that works - the authors listed on the author page, etc.

All of those graphs, incorporating hundreds of studies and decades of time, ocean and ice and land and lake and millenia, show hockey sticks similar in scale and implication to Mann's. It's not going away, with the new data. What are the odds that it vanishes with your latest find of, say, an as yet unexplained bump in the winter temps of the high altitude desert in central Asia? You do the math.

And that's just the first part - you have yet to even recognize the fact that the hockey stick is not critical for the AGW argument. Let's say you can prove it was an illusion of badly handled data - so what?

sculptor said:

Then you will have seen that previous warmer conditions were also noted in the south pacific, southern south america, and antarctica(and you just don't get much further south than that) ...
So: we now also have previous warmer conditions on the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere, the eastern hemisphere and the western hemisphere..........................
Whats left?

Click to expand...

What's left is for you to pay attention to the earlier responses there is no point in repeating, which pointed to the flaws in your descriptions and claims from those studies.

Along the way you might deal with the repeated inherent refutations of the missing argument you have yet to make explicit, probably because it's silly and you know it.

You are trying to argue that because it was warm at times in the past, the current AGW is not happening as measured and described. Therefore we don't have to worry too much about what the effects of the current AGW might be. That argument is going to need far more than innuendo, which is all you've been posting.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Clearly the oligarchs don't give a crap about the future of the planet.

Click to expand...

I blame human mating behavior. 'Cause lucre is what gets you women, ie. increases your chances of furthering your genes, which is the only biological meaning of life there is. And you can't expect men to make intelligent decisions when they're running around with more blood in the little head than in the big one.

"God gave man a brain and a penis and only enough blood to run one at a time."
- The Hon. Robin Williams

That Greenland was significantly warmer when the Vikings settled it was common knowledge before the first hockey stick was compiled. The new info is the better and more accurate dates and temperatures, knowledge of the basic situation predates the internet.
No, they don't. All that data, year after year, has been incorporated into the various global temp graphs that have been compiled, a new one or two every couple of years, since the first famous one. I linked you one from iirc 2013, that incorporated the data from a couple of your chosen studies, just so you could see how that works - the authors listed on the author page, etc.

All of those graphs, incorporating hundreds of studies and decades of time, ocean and ice and land and lake and millenia, show hockey sticks similar in scale and implication to Mann's. It's not going away, with the new data. What are the odds that it vanishes with your latest find of, say, an as yet unexplained bump in the winter temps of the high altitude desert in central Asia? You do the math.

And that's just the first part - you have yet to even recognize the fact that the hockey stick is not critical for the AGW argument. Let's say you can prove it was an illusion of badly handled data - so what?
What's left is for you to pay attention to the earlier responses there is no point in repeating, which pointed to the flaws in your descriptions and claims from those studies.

Along the way you might deal with the repeated inherent refutations of the missing argument you have yet to make explicit, probably because it's silly and you know it.

You are trying to argue that because it was warm at times in the past, the current AGW is not happening as measured and described. Therefore we don't have to worry too much about what the effects of the current AGW might be. That argument is going to need far more than innuendo, which is all you've been posting.

Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up. At least we got to read the rebuttals to that worn out tune.

Me, I've planted a couple, actually. But we'd have to replant the entire surface of the planet with woodland to counter our consumption of fossil CO2, including underwater algae stretches. The woodlands, that we are exhausting on top of burning fossil CO2. So why not just let go of burning fossil CO2? Problem solved. We have all the energy we'll ever need in the planet's hydro- and atmosphere, for as long as the Sun will burn. We already got the technical implements to harvest it. Why are you so bent against letting go of burning fossil CO2? It's idiotic. Are you suicidal? Do you hate your own species? Or do you have financial gains from burning fossils? Take that money and invest in sun, wind and sea. Now. Now. Now. Fossil fuel is history. It's not a tragedy, it's evolution.

Click to expand...

Actually, I went carbon neutral 25 years ago.
As my trees have grown, we are carbon negative enough to offset another 5-10 people. While producing enough Oxygen for 3000 people.
In one of the biographies of michelangelo buonarroti there is a story about an old man going out of his way to piss in the arno river. When asked why, he replied that his grandson's barge was hung up on a sandbar at pisa, and "well, every little bit helps".

My complaint lies with hyperbolic bad science used to frighten the feeble minded and ignorant.
I expect dishonesty and hyperbole from politicians and salesmen. I would prefer to not see it in scientists.
Sooner or later, the truth will have out. I consider mbh98/99 to be a repugnant assault on the integrity of the science.
Trust can take years to earn and minutes to lose. When people no longer trust scientists we may have a real problem.

Raised christian, I believe that we should be ever mindful to be good stewards of our shared co-evolutionary biom.

Do you appreciate that the equable climate model has withstood the tests of studies into paleo-climatology.
Though the past is no guaranteed predictor of the future, knowing it most likely offers valuable insights.
End eemian sea levels rose about 6 meters in as many centuries--with much more violent storms then it got cold and colder and colder right up to the deep freeze leading to our genetic bottleneck.-----Unless we're in a super-interglacial, I'd expect the same soon.

Raised christian, I believe that we should be ever mindful to be good stewards of our shared co-evolutionary biom.

Do you appreciate that the equable climate model has withstood the tests of studies into paleo-climatology.
Though the past is no guaranteed predictor of the future, knowing it most likely offers valuable insights.
End eemian sea levels rose about 6 meters in as many centuries--with much more violent storms then it got cold and colder and colder right up to the deep freeze leading to our genetic bottleneck.-----Unless we're in a super-interglacial, I'd expect the same soon.

Click to expand...

If you're raised Christian, already you're not in touch with reality. You're not poven right, just 'cause you try to get the last word.

Using a new technique to measure the sun's magnetic waves, Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England, told the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting last week that sunspot activity could drop as much as 60 percent to 70 percent between 2030 and 2040 from the current cycle.

She is predicting temperatures will also decline several degrees as they did in the 17th century ......
The model draws on dynamo impacts in two layers of the Sun, one near to the surface and one profound inside of its convection zone.

Forecasts from the model recommend that solar activity will fall by 60% during the 2030s to conditions last seen amid the 'mini ice age' that started in 1645, as indicated by the outcomes exhibited by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves turns out to be progressively offset during Cycle 25, which crests in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will turn out to be precisely out of synch and this will bring about a huge diminishment in solar activity.

Zharkova said “In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a Maunder minimum.”

Actually, I went carbon neutral 25 years ago.
As my trees have grown, we are carbon negative enough to offset another 5-10 people. While producing enough Oxygen for 3000 people.
In one of the biographies of michelangelo buonarroti there is a story about an old man going out of his way to piss in the arno river. When asked why, he replied that his grandson's barge was hung up on a sandbar at pisa, and "well, every little bit helps".

My complaint lies with hyperbolic bad science used to frighten the feeble minded and ignorant.
I expect dishonesty and hyperbole from politicians and salesmen. I would prefer to not see it in scientists.
Sooner or later, the truth will have out. I consider mbh98/99 to be a repugnant assault on the integrity of the science.
Trust can take years to earn and minutes to lose. When people no longer trust scientists we may have a real problem.

Raised christian, I believe that we should be ever mindful to be good stewards of our shared co-evolutionary biom.

Do you appreciate that the equable climate model has withstood the tests of studies into paleo-climatology.
Though the past is no guaranteed predictor of the future, knowing it most likely offers valuable insights.
End eemian sea levels rose about 6 meters in as many centuries--with much more violent storms then it got cold and colder and colder right up to the deep freeze leading to our genetic bottleneck.-----Unless we're in a super-interglacial, I'd expect the same soon.

Why do you choose to believe that prediction? Is she one of the honest ones? If so, how do you know?

Click to expand...

I do not choose to believe.
This is science. Climate is complex, and different scientific disciplines have different pieces to that complex puzzle.

If you seek easy answers, go to church.

IMHO---Much of the religion of agw is most likely predicated on a psychological illness wherein people are so full of self loathing that they need to project that self loathing out onto their society, culture, and species------------"we destroyed the planet, we poisoned the oceans, we are a blight on the world"----and when the "we" gets too painful, find a scapegoat like the koch brothers, or big oil or big coal--------add in a pinch of chicken little-and out the other end pops agw and only agw-----the christians have their cross, and the agws have their hockeystick---------------a pseudo-scientific religion that would destroy science.
And by extension, anyone who adheres to the myriad complexity of science is an heretic.

There ain't no easy answers--------------science ain't in the business of easy answers--------science is just a series of better and better questions which lead to the development of better instrumentation, which lead to more questions.

1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”
8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”
18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”
19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”
23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

50 heretics continued:34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”
38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

Each gas absorbs on different frequencies.
When they absorb energy, they then release that energy in all directions(question: Do they only re-radiate on the same frequency which they absorbed?), or get excited and bump into each other producing more heat.
When CO2 is higher than water vapor or N2O, then it has only the first (re-radiate) mechanism with which to effect our atmospheres.
Which may equate to not having the ability to reach saturation.

What this does for the saturation theory and it's maths has yet to be thoroughly worked out------------this refining process will require cooperation which roughly translates to acceptance of the/a potential validity of other's theorems.

There is a rebuttal to the work you mention. Have you looked at that [them]?

Click to expand...

Yes, several. See above for one.

That's the nature of science. A theory/an hypothesis is proposed, and then refined and then refined and then refined..........
Questions should lead to more questions.
And precious few absolutes.

eg: (statement) A leads to b , c, d, e, f, ...
but wait, A does not directly lead to f.
Does that mean that A does not lead to f?
refine.

Buckyism(one of my professors) His design school was all about collaboration and cooperation.
@"If you cannot find the answer, rephrase/refine the question. When you find the right question, the answer becomes obvious."

.According to the History and Philosophy of Science department at Eötvös Loránd University, Zágoni was an “assistant professor of philosphy” in January, 2006. He presumably left his position later that year, as inJune, 2006, he is listed as a “Past Faculty Member.” Zágoni had maintained a faculty page where he promoted articles skeptical of climate change.